From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nix Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Windows' "split status" Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:36:30 +0000 Message-ID: <87sjlfxbg1.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> References: <87vcqqoekt.fsf@gnu.org> <4EBD6B63.4050607@gmx.at> <87vcqq6utg.fsf@gnu.org> <4EBE4414.10009@gmx.at> <87d3cwr9hc.fsf@gnu.org> <4EBFA0AF.7000608@gmx.at> <87obwgatpy.fsf@gnu.org> <4EBFFBA5.1000309@gmx.at> <87hb26gdx8.fsf@gnu.org> <4EC213EA.4080304@gmx.at> <871ut9n2rr.fsf@gnu.org> <4EC2821C.4020400@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1322051808 21079 80.91.229.12 (23 Nov 2011 12:36:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:36:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Chong Yidong , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 23 13:36:44 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RTC4C-0000Cz-JN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:36:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56470 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RTC4C-000179-38 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:36:44 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:42267) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RTC4A-00016x-8E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:36:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RTC49-0004XJ-98 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:36:42 -0500 Original-Received: from icebox.esperi.org.uk ([81.187.191.129]:33149 helo=mail.esperi.org.uk) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RTC48-0004Wq-MP; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:36:41 -0500 Original-Received: from esperi.org.uk (nix@spindle.srvr.nix [192.168.14.15]) by mail.esperi.org.uk (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pANCaVUH025045; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:36:31 GMT Original-Received: (from nix@localhost) by esperi.org.uk (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id pANCaUgf020247; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:36:30 GMT Emacs: if SIGINT doesn't work, try a tranquilizer. In-Reply-To: <4EC2821C.4020400@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:15:40 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.91 (gnu/linux) X-DCC-dcc1-Metrics: spindle 1182; Body=4 Fuz1=4 Fuz2=4 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 81.187.191.129 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:146174 Archived-At: On 15 Nov 2011, martin rudalics told this: > What makes you think that? You can let-bind `window-nest' to t around a > split and get an extra parent around the resulting two windows. After > that you can split those windows any which way you want and can get an > arbitrary number of windows within a "sub-frame". The manual explicitly > uses the term "always" in the sentence > > If this variable is always non-`nil', a frame's window > tree is a binary tree so every window but the frame's root window > has exactly one sibling. As a native English speaker, I'm afraid that this reads like a non-native-English-speaker's attempt to render > If this variable is always non-`nil', a frame's window tree is always > a binary tree so every window but the frame's root window has exactly > one sibling. which unfortunately has a quite different meaning. While your formulation is grammatically correct, I don't think it's very meaningful to talk about a variable's value "always" being something. Perhaps framing this in terms of a guarantee is clearer? > If this variable's value remains non-`nil' throughout the lifetime of > a frame, the frame's window tree is guaranteed to be a binary tree; > every window nested below the root window will have exactly one > sibling. -- NULL && (void)